Except the Scientific Method is demonstrable and testable and therefore doesn't "lack evidence of its own existence" at all. What is this? It's like testing for the process of photosynthesis in plants and then suggesting that it doesn't exist because no other methods besides scientific analysis can prove it. This is such a failure of reasoning. For example, as a very brief hypothetical on what seems to be the flaw here, you seem to suggest that because Science says if you do X then Y happens. You then make this leap to suggest "If you do X then Y happens" is the same level as circular reasoning because "If you do X then Y happens is the same as if you do X then Y happens" - it is nonsensical because we have demonstrable, testable evidence for If X then Y. You're attempting to say more than evidence needs to exist without giving any valid and logical reason for any weakness the scientific method could have. I definitely cannot take you seriously as a researcher, this is such a basic failure in logical thinking skills. Apply your illogical reasoning to anything; carbon dating of trees, the evolutionary process, condensation and precipitation, and it just doesn't make any coherent sense. What a dismal, tragic failure of a human being. I suppose, like Nietzsche said, some loons are just obsessed with death worship or "god" as you call it.